New bibles since 1960

If one version differs from another, they both can’t be the word of God. Confusion is not part of truth.

New Heart English Bible is pretty good, tons of footnotes, And with no copyrights public domain.

Apparently you have learned nothing about the challenges of translation between languages and differences among manuscript source materials despite debating this topic here for at least two years.

Tell me, which is the word of God: Bishop's, or Coverdale, or Geneva? Erasmus's first version, or his third? The Masoretic, or the Septuagint? The 1611 KJV, or the 1769 Blaney Revision? The Cambridge Edition, or the Oxford Edition?

Doesn’t need to be exactly word for word, I just need the exact words of God in English. God’s exact meaning of the “originals”, I believe is found in English in the precise words in the KJV.

Ah, the James White argument...

The KJV has NEVER been “revised”. By this I simply mean that the King James Bible’s underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed in over 400 years. The alleged “thousands of changes” in the various editions or printings of the King James Bible are not changes in the text reading, but what has changed is the type font from Gothic print to the Roman type, the spelling of many words like sinne to sin, and doore to door, Goe to go and hee to he. The spelling has been modernized, but the text itself has never changed.

You believe that and that's fine. I don't agree; I don't believe the KJV is the precise word of God, and you consider it "not fine". That's your problem, not mine. You can only defend your position by means of logical fallacies and convoluted arguments that ignore the plain text.

Well then, you had best not read any text except the exact original copies written by the original authors - and good luck finding those!

The poor English speaking people before 1611! No word of God available to them!??? God waited 1600 years to finally give English speaking people His Word?????!!!!!!!!!

the first addition 1611, was a bit of a laugh around town, called the she or he Bible.

John: "God’s exact meaning of the “originals”, I believe is found in English in the precise words in the KJV."
God expecs you to exercise common sense. The believers who coppiled the texts of the Bible over 1600 years were human and therefore often got tired and lost focus, causing them to make the 400,000+ copying errors. The texts available to the KJV translators ware late Byxantine texts. But God in His providence helped the discovery and use of earlier more reliable manuscripts which had far less time for errors to creep in.

The science of Text Criticism was then developed to group these manuscripts into families by date and region, so that believers might discover where, how, and why the many contradictory readings crept into the text. Remember, it is the original text that is divinely inspired, not the highly flawed copying process!

John, do you love the Lord enough to read a standard book on Text Criticism, so that you can see why we know the best readings of the Greek and Hebrew text? Accepting the KJV is not only doctrinally harmful For example, no believer in their right mind should believe that handling venemous snakes and drinking poison (16:17) is a "sign" of the true beiiever. And we know that the ending of Mark (16:9-20) was not only missing in the earliest manuscripts; we even know who fabricated it, Aristo of Pella.

Actually, I’m ok if you don’t believe the same as I.

God expecs you to exercise common sense. God expects me to read, study and believe every word. Logic always gets in man’s way. The believers who coppiled the texts of the Bible over 1600 years were human and therefore often got tired and lost focus, causing them to make the 400,000+ copying errors. So were the original authors. The texts available to the KJV translators ware late Byxantine texts. Funny how God used the KJV to spur head the greatest revival the world has ever seen. But God in His providence helped the discovery and use of earlier more reliable manuscripts which had far less time for errors to creep in. Older hardly ever means better. What it means is those manuscripts were rejected by the early believers and never handled.

The science of Text Criticism was then developed to group these manuscripts into families by date and region, so that believers might discover where, how, and why the many contradictory readings crept into the text. Remember, it is the original text that is divinely inspired, not the highly flawed copying process! This always makes man his own final authority.

John, do you love the Lord enough to read a standard book on Text Criticism, so that you can see why we know the best readings of the Greek and Hebrew text? Accepting the KJV is not only doctrinally harmful For example, no believer in their right mind should believe that handling venemous snakes and drinking poison (16:17) is a "sign" of the true beiiever. You fail to rightly divide, probably because your Bible doesn’t command you to. Those signs were to the Jews. They stopped at the official rejection of their Messiah in Acts 28. And we know that the ending of Mark (16:9-20) was not only missing in the earliest manuscripts; we even know who fabricated it, Aristo of Pella.

You apparently don't understand the nature of logic.

Fallacy: irrelevant appeal.

Without supporting evidence, that is merely meaningless slander.

Which is no different than what happened with the KJV translators.

Really? Have you stooped so low? I thought you were above such blatant and ignorant innuendo.

Jphn, you ducked the main issue: 400, 000 contradictory manuscript readings caused by human copying error over many centuries. Since the KJV is based on the latest and least accurate manuscripts and since the KJV was authorized to support the bias of the English monarchy and the ecclesial structure of the Church of England, you need to provide evidence as th why is still preferable to earlier manuscrpts, despite these errors.

Secondly, your support of Mark 16:9-20 implies that much of the NT applies only to the Jews and can safely be ignored by us Gentiles. More seriously, you ducked the point that we know who perpetuated the fraud of its inclusion, Aristo of Pella. Kindly season your unsubstantiated pontifications with logical explanations based on research.

Looks like you know little or nothing about this matter. The Hebrew and Greek texts from which the KJV is translated are the traditional texts SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF MANUSCRIPTS. And that goes for Mark 16:9-20.

Kindly read and carefully study The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by Dean John William Burgon, as well as all his books and articles on the true and false texts of Scripture. Then, and only then, will you be able to understand this matter.

Didn’t mean to be offensive, just stating a fact about the new versions.

Nehemiah, don't be facile! The only reason that there are more Byzantine texts, is because sometime much later, the Greek monks started copying the Byzantine manuscripts. It was a full time job for thousands, for generations, for centuries. The only problem, is that everyone of these manuscripts are categorized into families. So, a family called A, with 10,000 mostly identical copied manuscripts, counts as ONE manuscript.

And within families, the art of lower criticism has catalogued every single addition in the margin, copied into the text by the next generation, which is why there are so many additions in the later, corrupted manuscripts. Here is a link for you, to see that there were no Byzantine manuscripts before the 6th century existance. They just sort of sprang into being. No history, no background. Unlike the Alexandrian, which is condemned because it came from Egypt, where knowledge was flourishing and so was the Christian Church. (The Roman numerals indicate the years. So, V = 6th Century. (Red letters are highlighted by me!)

http://bibletranslation.ws/manu.html


"Note that the Byzantine classification does not show up a lot before the 6th century. The reason for the proliferation of Byzantine branch Greek manuscripts later, is that the Byzantine church was the only one that spoke and read Greek, and so was the only branch of the church that needed to reproduce Greek Bibles. Thus the fact that there are a greater number of Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine branch is not considered significant for purposes of finding the original reading. This is not Westcott and Hort. It is just common sense.

The Alexandrian branch is characterized as: Conservative. Relatively free of harmonization and paraphrase. Short. Willing to accept difficult readings.

The Byzantine branch is characterized as: Widespread. Regarded by many text critics in the 20th century to be far-removed from the original documents, but worthy of detailed study because of the influence it has had on mixed manuscripts. Marked by smooth and easy readings and by harmonizations, but rarely indulges in paraphrase or the major expansions seemingly found in the Western text. It rarely creates readings. The Byzantine branch used to be widely regarded as derived from other text-types; and usually preserving the easiest reading. However, the most current studies show that many individual Byzantine READINGS are as ancient as any other.

The Caesarean branch is characterized as: Mildly paraphrastic, so as to give an appearance of falling between the Alexandrian and "Western" texts. Since no pure manuscripts are known, most other descriptions of the type have been conjectural. To date found only in the gospels.

The Western branch is characterized as: Marked by paraphrase, occasional expansion, and possible additions from oral sources. Fond of striking and abrupt readings. Reaches its most extreme form in D (05, Codex Bezae); the "Western" text of Paul (found in D 06) is a much more restrained text."


Time to do a little more work, instead of swallowing this Byzantine manuscripts lie!

I've done my homework and I am fully aware of the false theories of the modern critics following W&H. But both Scrivener (the leading authority on manuscripts in the 19th century) and Burgon (not too far behind him) REJECTED all that nonsense. And even W& H (along with Bishop Ellicott) were compelled to admit that since 400 AD the established Greek text of the NT was the Byzantine text. So what you should do is study Scrivener's textbook on the subject, since he personally collated the actual manuscripts (and I own a reprint of this book, and have also studied it).




Here's what Scrivener said about those bogus *groupings* you have mentioned:

The study of "groupings" has been recently and not untruly said to be the foundation of all enduring criticism. Now that theories about the formal recensions of whole classes of these documents have generally been given up as purely visionary, and the very word "families" has come into disrepute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can discern not the less clearly that certain groups of them have in common not only a general resemblance in regard to the readings they exhibit, but characteristic peculiarities attaching themselves to each group.

Systematic or wilful corruption of the sacred text, at least on a scale worth taking into account, there would seem to have been almost none; yet the tendency to licentious paraphrase and unwarranted additions distinguished one set of our witnesses from the second century downwards; a bias towards grammatical and critical purism and needless omissions appertained to another; while a third was only too apt to soften what might seem harsh, to smooth over difficulties, and to bring passages, especially of the Synoptic Gospels, into unnatural harmony with each other. All these changes appear to have been going on without notice during the whole of the third and fourth centuries, and except that the great name of Origen is associated (not always happily) with on class of them, were rather the work of transcribers than of scholars.

Name one translation (not a paraphrase) that does not contain 2 Timothy 2:15.

That's one of the most biased comments you've ever made.

It's also one of the silliest. Understanding does not come from reading a single source, but from reading all the evidence, for and against a given position.

Some, perhaps. Not all; that would be impossible as he would not have had access to all of them.